| 1 |
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:39:38 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:35:08 -0400 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 22:10:02 +0200 |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:25 +0200 |
| 11 |
> > > René Neumann <lists@××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > > Hi all, |
| 14 |
> > > > |
| 15 |
> > > > I'd like just to receive a short clarification about the |
| 16 |
> > > > 'status' of base.eclass: Is this eclass expected to be available |
| 17 |
> > > > everywhere, i.e. should each eclass make sure it imports and |
| 18 |
> > > > incorporates it. Or is it just an eclass like the others and |
| 19 |
> > > > ebuilds should make sure they inherit it if needed? |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > No. It is unmaintained, has serious design flaws and it simply |
| 22 |
> > > should not be used anywhere. At least in EAPI != [01]. |
| 23 |
> > > |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > what is the PATCHES=() replacement in new eapis? (mainly why i use |
| 26 |
> > base.eclass more and more these days) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> That's what I used: |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> [[ ${PATCHES} ]] && epatch "${PATCHES[@]}" |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
and ? thanks, I can read the code :) |
| 35 |
are you suggesting people to duplicate the code ? this is in no way a |
| 36 |
replacement... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
A. |
Archives